For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Sunday, 27 September 2015

Evening allA slight change this evening - a reply from Nuala, some no-hoper who appears to have attached herself to Textusa like an unsightly wart.It's very amusingI'll copy her post in full first, then break it down

Not Textusa 27 Sep 2015, 03:20:00

There is no question that a wide circle of people were involved in trying to cover up what happened to Maddie. That's not up for debate, that's what happened.

The question we're then left with is why all those people would do that, what their motivation was.

We all know what paedophiles do to children, so would they be prepared to help cover for a paedophile, that diverse circle of people all agree to do that? Absolutely not.

But presented with a situation where a child wasn't killed intentionally but nonetheless had tragically died, and not only that it was as the result of a swinging event, because the two adults present when the child died were married to other people, would people be prepared to collude in a cover up in those circumstances? People who thought their own reputations would be ruined if the truth got out, and others because they were told what to do or else, would they collude in a cover up?

The answer is yes, and they did.

"you insist they would not cover up for a paedophile but would cover up, in your scenario, for a grown man hitting a child so hard that she died"

That's equating the two situations. I hope I don't have to graphically describe what a paedophile does to a child for anyone to understand the difference between the two. It should be obvious to any decent person.

There is no question that a wide circle of people were involved in trying to cover up what happened to Maddie. That's not up for debate, that's what happened.

Oh really? Not up for debate, eh? I beg to differ. You have fallen for Textusa's bullshit, clearly, which is unsurprising as you seem a little simple-minded. There is no evidence of this at all. Just a load of barmpot theories from the mentally disadvantaged

The question we're then left with is why all those people would do that, what their motivation was.

Well, no. You are only left with that question if you believe Textusa's bullshit. Which you do.

We all know what paedophiles do to children, so would they be prepared to help cover for a paedophile, that diverse circle of people all agree to do that? Absolutely not.

Only if the child was an infant, according to Textusa

But presented with a situation where a child wasn't killed intentionally but nonetheless had tragically died, and not only that it was as the result of a swinging event, because the two adults present when the child died were married to other people, would people be prepared to collude in a cover up in those circumstances? People who thought their own reputations would be ruined if the truth got out, and others because they were told what to do or else, would they collude in a cover up?

This completely avoids my question, which as you will recall was as follows:

"So what would a restaurant worker or a nanny have to lose? Or a receptionist? Or Sky News? All people or organisations Textusa claims were involved. And please don't give me some nonsense about the threat of losing their job - there was a £2m reward up for grabs."

You say

'' and others because they were told what to do or else

So your theory is that all those people were told what had happened, given a complicated backstory to learn and participate in because ''or else''What is ''or else''?If someone told you to commit a serious crime ''Or else'' would you do it? Because someone told you to? Well, you probably would, but I think you'll find most wouldn'tAnd what precisely was the ''Or else'' with which they threatened Sky News?

The answer is yes, and they did.

So you contend that the guests would all knowingly cover up for a couple who were covering up the violent death of their child at the hands of one of their party, including the investigation of her death and proper burial, rather than have people know they were swingers? Or in other words, commit a very very serious crime for which they could spend years in jail in order to spare their own blushes and the arses of the guilty parties?And all the other parties? The people I listed above?

"you insist they would not cover up for a paedophile but would cover up, in your scenario, for a grown man hitting a child so hard that she died"

That's equating the two situations.

Er yes, it is.

I hope I don't have to graphically describe what a paedophile does to a child for anyone to understand the difference between the two. It should be obvious to any decent person.

Ah - so it's okay to cover up for someone who beats a child to death, but not for someone who sexually abuses them - is that what you are saying?You people have a very very strange, twisted sense of right and wrongNow would you like to answer the question you avoided?"So what would a restaurant worker or a nanny have to lose? Or a receptionist? Or Sky News? All people or organisations Textusa claims were involved. And please don't give me some nonsense about the threat of losing their job - there was a £2m reward up for grabs."

''They all colluded in the cover up of what happened to Maddie because, as you say, they were stakeholders. They themselves had something to lose, which in their eyes was their own reputations (or so they thought in the panic of the moment).''So what would a restaurant worker or a nanny have to lose? Or a receptionist? Or Sky News? All people or organisations Textusa claims were involved. And please don't give me some nonsense about the threat of losing their job - there was a £2m reward up for grabs.While we are at it, according to this ridiculous theory all those many hundreds of people also know what actually happened to Madeleine, as you insist they would not cover up for a paedophile but would cover up, in your scenario, for a grown man hitting a child so hard that she died.What complete nonsense"

This is what she has published in her ''censored'' version

Comment received from Insane which we have censored:

"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The saint of Salem I":

''They all colluded in the cover up of what happened to Maddie because, as you say, they were stakeholders. They themselves had something to lose, which in their eyes was their own reputations (or so they thought in the panic of the moment).''

So what would a restaurant worker or a nanny have to lose? Or a receptionist? Or Sky News? All people or organisations Textusa claims were involved. And please don't give me some nonsense about the threat of losing their job - there was a £2m reward up for grabs.

While we are at it, according to this ridiculous theory all those many hundreds of people also know what actually happened to Madeleine, as you insist they would not cover up for a paedophile but would cover up, in your scenario, for a grown man hitting a child so hard that she died.(censored)

Wednesday, 23 September 2015

It was a crucial time on Planet FuckwitThe massed ranks of the Bennettoids had been deployed by their balding leader, with the following war cry:"Destroy the Last Photo doubters, men! Remember, we have the leading experts in the world on our side. The photo has not been altered!""Apart from the date, Tony?""Oh yes, apart from the date of course.......""And how do we know the date was changed, oh malodorous one?""Because it was sunnier on the Sunday""Well, yes, but it was sunny on the Thursday too and it would only need to be sunny for a bit, so....""Blasphemer!!!!!! It was taken on the Sunday. I have decreed it....."

"But I was only saying......""Jill!!!! ...."

Scene 2

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, The Textaloons were gathering......"Tell us how to think, Oh revered one" they cried.Textusa blushed, winningly."Just try to be wonderfully clever, like me" she gushed "and use as many acronyms as you can""WTF?" they LOL-ed"Worry not, lowly minions ..." Textusa cried" I will baffle them with a JMEL, a VIOUB and a negligence pirouette. They won't see it coming. Just remember, if you are challenged fall back and regroup, using an approved chant""You mean "Amelie has no arm, Amelie has no arm" one loon asked?"Or 'The reflection is all wrong, show us yer angles, show us yer angles?" suggested another"Well done, my children" said Textusa, pausing to read a chapter of Physics for Knobheads"I have thrown down a challenge to Baldybonce, to meet us at the Valley of the Facebook. Take up your arrows and your highlighter pens, and prepare for battle!!"

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

A remark for Insane: You are wrong about point 12 Not Textusa. In fact, there was no test done to determine the origin of body fluid. Mr Lowe made a deduction based on the DNA being the DNA of a child that, according to Lowe, could not have deposited semen due to his age.

Isabel

I really am sick and tired of explaining this to the thicky sisters. All this information is IN THE FILES, with the exception of the explanation of what the Phadebas test actually tests for, which comes from my personal knowledgeI have left the following reply, which Textusa probably won't publish, hence my publishing it here too

"No, you are wrong.

The stain was tested in situ initially using a phosphatase test, which gave a weakly positive result. That is NOT an absolute indication of semen; saliva can provoke a similar response.

The DNA analysis yielded a full DNA profile which was a 100% match to the young child in question. A child that age does not produce semen, therefore the stain was judged, in the opinion of the expert, not to be semen. A further test, a Phadebas test, which specifically tests for the enzyme amylase present in saliva, gave a positive result. This is confirmed in the PJ files, which you have either not read or did not understand.

I will take your full apology and retraction as confirmed"

The non-saga continuesThe dozy cow reappeared and posted a long extract from the Lowe reportHere is my answer

''Are you attempting to make a point, Isabel? Because if you are, you are failing miserably.

Why don't you come back when you have read the files properly, dear.

You and Textusa seem utterly incapable of realising that without the entirety of the reports on this sample, it is like switching a football match on with 15 minutes to go and assuming that the scoreline at that instant is the final score.

You claimed no test was done to determine the origin of the body fluid. That is a complete lie. As I stated, the Phadebas test gave a positive result for saliva.

There is no mystery about this, other than the one Mrs Loonypants has tried to engineer''

Since then the dozy trollop has posted another interminable comment which I can't be arsed to copy over, although this bit did amuse me

" All I wanted you to have done was to actually write what you now wrote here as a reply . Chasing the adventurous itinerary of sample 5, which you had not done properly. If anything, my comment made you write a more accurate account of the sample's analysis."

I can't be arsed getting into a war of words with some no-mark. Had she or Textusa read my earlier piece on this the last time Textusa tried to bullshit them she would have realised I covered it all in depth at the time.

Amazingly, Isabel, from stating:

"In fact, there was no test done to determine the origin of body fluid"

....now seems to have located it in the files. Amazing what a quick word search can do, isn't it?As for the rest - she thinks I get angry, you see, bless her - she is welcome to fuck off at her earliest possible convenience Oh FFS, the vacant cow is back again

A remark for Insane: You are wrong about point 12 Not Textusa. In fact, there was no test done to determine the origin of body fluid. Mr Lowe made a deduction based on the DNA being the DNA of a child that, according to Lowe, could not have deposited semen due to his age.

Isabel

I said nothing about Lowe conducting the test. I clearly stated a further test for saliva showed a positive result. Textusa initially claimed that the DNA, in her uneducated opinion, did not belong to CGIt did.Textusa also claimed, without stating that it was her uneducated opinion, that it contained both saliva and semen.It did notNow do fuck off, again. (Much of this has already been covered in this post here)

Saturday, 19 September 2015

Having seen Textusa's reply to Tony Bennett, and finally managed to stop laughing, I thought I would take a look at her questions

1. Did the Big Round Table exist? We don’t think it did.

You claim not to believe the table existed because you said it wasn't possible to fit nine people around a table despite the fact that restaurants do it every day and you hadn't seen a photo of it. When presented with filmed footage of it, you claimed the footage had been doctored by Sky. When presented with a photo of it you claimed it was too flimsy to bear the weight of a meal.Conclusion: Bollocks, of course it existed.

2. Was there total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies)) or only there was no negligence because of “one Tapas in apartment”? Yes we think there was no negligence whatsoever.

There is individual witness testimony from several individuals stating that they were aware the McCann party left their children alone or they observed them leaving the table to make checks.Conclusion: Bollocks, plenty of witness testimony to the contrary.

3. Did the Tapas dinners take place? We don’t think they did.

Numerous individual witness testimonies from Tapas staff and diners who observed the McCann party thereConclusion: Bollocks. Of course they did.

4. Are the Tapas Reservation Sheets genuine? We don’t think they are.

The reservation sheets correspond to the witness testimony and show no signs of having been tampered with Conclusion : Utter bollocks

6. Did Mrs Fenn hear Maddie cry for 75 minutes and why she only reported it over 3 months later? We think there was no crying episode.

There is no evidence that she only reported it 3 months later - on the contrary, she is reported as being concerned that it took so long to take her statement. There would be no reason for her to make it upConclusion: Utter bollocks

7. Is Derek Flack lying about Pimpleman? We think he was.

You have given no reason why he would, and his sighting is confirmed by another witnessConclusion: Utter bollocks

8. Is TS lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

You have given no reason why a 12 year old local girl would make up such a story. Your fanciful, abusing stories that she was ordered to do so by adults who were sexually abusing her is tantamount to harassment of the child. Her account is also supported by other witness testimonyConclusion: Utter bollocks and possibly your most shameful hour.

Multiple witness testimony states the opposite. As the existence of a quiz has no role in the disappearance of Madeleine there is no earthly reason to doubt these accountsConclusion: Utter bollocks

11. Were there watersports? We don’t think there were.

Why? This is just idiocy - there is clear evidence of these being available and taking placeConclusion: Utter bollocks

12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.

No, it is from him, as confirmed by DNA analysis by the FSS. The bed cover did not contain semen; you are well aware of this. Conclusion: Utter bollocks

13. Why did PJ use the word “swing” to search Murat’s and Malinka’s computers? Because PJ knew swinging was going on.

They used lots of words. There is no evidence whatsoever that the resort was being used for swinging or that the PJ believed this to be the caseConclusion: Utter bollocks

14. Were the booking sheets tampered with? We think they were.

No they weren't, and nor have you produced any evidence to show thisConclusion: Utter bollocks

15. Were the crèche sheets tampered with? We think they were.

No evidence of this whatsoever, despite the ramblings of an assortment of twitter gobshitesConclusion: Utter bollocks.

16. Is Stephen Carpenter lying about almost all he says? We think he was.

One thing you will never understand is that multiple accusations does not equal evidence. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Mr Carpenter lied, and the only reason you have accused him is because his evidence contradicts many of your demented theoriesConclusion: Utter bollocks

17. Is Raj Balu lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

18. Is Neil Berry lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

I am going to take these two together- what possible reason would these two men have to lie about a travel cot? It is a moot point in any case as it has no relevance whatsoever to Madeleine - it's just another of your flights of fancyConclusion: Utter bollocks

And there, in a single page, is Textusa's entire output for the last 8 years, dismissed.The woman is a lunatic.

Evening all.Well, it's that time again. Textusa's post this week is ambitiously titled ''Truth"Now - I know what you are all thinking. Textusa wouldn't know the truth if it was spelled out in Alphabetti Spaghetti and nailed to her corneas. And you would be right.Still, it might be fun watching her try.......

TRUTH

Textusa came in a very creditable 4th in the All-Portugal Psychiatric patient jousting competition, although she lost points for claiming that the horse was "looking at her in a funny way"

01. Introduction

We hope, dear reader that by now you have realised that you have had the privilege of sharing something with Mr Amaral: you have been treated all these years in the EXACT same way Mr Gonçalo Amaral was from the moment the PJ officers he was responsible for set foot in Praia da Luz until the moment he was “relieved” of all his duties pertaining to the Maddie case, which happened early October 2007.

What - referred to as sweaty and corpulent and sued by the McCanns?

Yes, please read it again.

Must I?

Read it as many times as you need to fully comprehend that we all were submitted to what we call the “Jenny Murat’s Stall Effect” (JMSE).

Fuck me ragged. Another one. Okay, I'm in - what the fuck is the ''Jenny Murat's Stall Effect?

And in “all” we include you, us, Mr Amaral and the general public, from those interested in the case to those only aware of it.

Yes, but what is it?

This JMSE effect, which we will define later on in the post, is in our opinion simply the most pernicious single thing that has afflicted the Maddie Affair.

Yes, but what is it? Explain now, for the love of god; you know people have lost the will to live by halfway

Yes, the MOST.

Well, whatever it is, it's the most pernicious thing since Guy Fawkes abused his backstage pass for "Ye Olde Question Tyme" to set fire to the Houses of Parliament. Apparently.

Not a very relevant, nor a very important but the MOST damaging thing to the truth about what happened to Maddie. Even more than any and all high-level political interference that this case has had.

So it's not very relevant, and it's not very important, but it's the most damaging thing to the truth?What is it then?

02. The Jenny Murat Stall Effect or JMSE

What is the Jenny Murat Stall Effect or JMSE?

That is what we would all like to know, yes.

We all know that Jenny set up a small stall in Praia da Luz to help find Madeleine. Before the verb “to find” associated with the word “Madeleine” became a world known brand.

Indeed

Before the Fraudulent Fund and the website were set up we all knew of this elderly woman, Jenny Murat, who set up a stall to help all efforts to find the missing girl. We then were very far away from knowing she was the mother of someone who would become the 1st arguido of the case, Robert Murat.

And your point?

Then the Murats were very busy helping, the son with translating, the mother with her stall.

They were, yes.....

But we now know the Murats have been economical with the truth as to what we think regards their involvement in the case.

Okay. Let's stop you there.You have accused them of being involved. You have accused them of being economical with the truth. You haven't presented any evidence of either. Your mad rambling accusation is not evidence

So what did Jenny Murat intend to achieve when she set up her stall?

According to her, to provide a point people could go to for information and if they were reluctant to speak to the police

Obviously only she can answer that but we can make an educated guess that it was to distract and to create a character, a persona, who we shall call as Jenny “JMSE” Murat.

That is not an educated guess. That is a barking mad accusation with no evidence to support it

Jenny “JMSE” Murat was a character created to show the world an ultra-caring Brit ex-Pat whose heart overflowed for the missing girl.

And where is your evidence to suggest she was anything other than this?

Jenny “JMSE” Murat, a character with the intent to obfuscate completely Jenny Murat, a person who we believe knew there was no missing girl at all.

It doesn't matter what you believe, you mad old bat - where is your evidence of this claim? And what do you mean ''there was no missing girl at all''?

Jenny “JMSE” Murat v Jenny Murat, an intentional dichotomy.

Oh yes, she bears all the hallmarks of a criminal genius; written all over her. For Fuck's sake.

To understand we have on one hand Jenny Murat who we believe, together with her son, was actively participating in hiding from authorities the fact the little girl was dead

Okay - where is your evidence of that?

and on the other there’s Jenny “JMSE” Murat, the altruistic senior who wants nothing but the safe return of that little blonde girl who her parents were saying went missing just down the road from her house.

And where is your evidence to say she wasn't entirely genuine in this wish?

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde incarnated but without the split personality. That is the “Jenny Murat Stall Effect” or JMSE.

Okay. Let's stop there''Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde incarnated but without the split personality''The whole point of the two IS the split personality. Without the split personality they are the same. So you are saying the JennyMurat Stall Effect is the Jekyll and Hyde effect, but without the actual Jekyll and Hyde part. Good, I'm so glad we cleared that up.

To produce a JMSE effect is to pretend to be an absolute “goody-goody” knowing full well that not only is it a mask but fundamentally is also a distraction.

Distraction from what?

There are 2 things absolutely necessary to create this effect: to put on the mask of goodness and have something to hide.

To put on a cloak of sainthood to distract from truth.

To first become a saint and when that sainthood is achieved then the saint can lie all it wants to the congregation.

Right - so let's get this straight.

You are alleging that Jenny Murat, a pensioner with no connection to the McCanns whatsoever, pretended to be ''nice'' and ''kind'' because she was in fact a Moriarty-type figure who was a criminal mastermind, who knew the child was dead, and who conspired with the McCanns to cover this up. That is what you are suggesting, isn't it?I have a question for you.Are you on drugs?Have you been out picking your own mushrooms again?Do please explain how Jenny Murat learned of Madeleine's fate, and why she would decide to cover up for them(Please don't say she was a swinger because I have recently eaten)

From then on, anything the saint utters from his/her mouth cannot be questioned. It’s a saint speaking so the words are not only the truth but the whole magnificent truth and nothing but the truth.

Ah - so she became a saint, did she? Automatically believed, was she?Interesting.Apart, presumably, when she said ''My son was home with me all evening"? If she was a ''saint'' why wasn't she believed, without question?

Anyone thinking otherwise will keep silent for fear of ridicule and “rightful” indignation and outrage from the offended saint. And anyone saying such sacrilege will be looked down upon with disdain from all.

Anyone such as who? The police?Come on, who are these people to whom you refer?

A saint is a saint and a saint must be respected.

And no one dares go against a saint.

So if Jenny Murat established herself as a saint, and no-one dares go against a saint, then why was she not taken at her word when she said her son stayed home with her?Why, if she knew what had happened to Madeleine did she not say, when her son was arguidoed, that she knew what had happened?You haven't thought this through, have you?

And there are many of them around as we hope to show.

Are there?Who?

03. Mr Amaral and JMSE

Was Jenny Murat the first to use the JMSE in Luz at the time of Maddie’s disappearance when she set up her stall?

No. The fact that she lends her name to the effect doesn’t mean that she was the first one to use it in this situation.

Oh of course not. Who else?

The first ones to use JMSE, and they did it immediately and extensively, was the Ocean Club.

Ah haWhy?Why would the Ocean Club ''put on a mask of goodness''?According to your lunatic theory, Madeleine was killed during an altercation between her mother and another adult. So what does that have to do with the Ocean club?

We don’t know how fast nor to whom (although time has pointed its fingers to some names) of the circle of trust spread the word on the night of the 3rd, so we don’t know if or how many of the staff of the resort, both of Ocean Club and Mark Warner, were “in on it” as time progressed.

You previously claimed it was all of them. Now you are saying you don't know who or how manySo which is it?

What we know is that the word spread and it spread fast.

No you don't. If you can't say who or how many, then how can you say it spread and fast? You are contradicting yourself.The truth is you can't say because you have made it all up

Those doubting that the word could ever have been spread quickly to instruct staff on what to say when questioned by authorities are contradicting the alleged way the news about Maddie’s disappearance spread in those first hours throughout the resort and the village that night.

Handing out a pre-prepared card detailing a search procedure is ever so slightly different to recruiting staff to participate in a massive criminal conspiracy, Textusa.

Supposedly, it spread so quickly that we are led to believe there a search involving almost every living soul in Luz. Allegedly many workers, guests and local residents combed the streets and surroundings of Luz. All except Kate, the Paynes, Jez Wilkins, the Carpenters and the Murats just to name a few.

I believe Luz has a permanent population of around 3,000 people.Are you now trying to claim there was in excess of 3,000 people out searching that night? Silly, silly woman.

By the way we have reason to believe that this collective search is just another hoax as many others put out but we will deal with it in later posts.

So the search was also a hoax. Do you not think the police would have noticed? Or did they participate in the ''hoax'' too?

A way to see how quickly a word spreads is to stand waist deep in the water of a crowded beach and shout desperately “SHARK! SHARK!! There’s a SHARK in the water!!!”. Then one has just to watch how fast this information spreads. It’s quite a stupid exercise and probably will bring one very unpleasant consequence both legal and physical so please refrain from doing it, simply picture it in your mind.

Okay - let's try that again.If you shout ''Shark!" then people will process it like this:"There is a shark in the waterI would prefer not to be eatenTherefore I shall leave the water" So what happened - did someone run into the streets and shout at the staff ''The kid is dead, if anyone asks the parents ate at the Tapas every night, okay? What do you mean 'Can we get into trouble?' Don't worry about that just lie your arse off"You'll forgive me if I say that is utter utter shite.

The word spread quickly around the resort but of course there were priorities for who to inform and instruct first and like anything that is spread, some nooks and crannies get missed.

So of all the hundreds of staff and guests, not one person said ''No chance, I'm not lying for the fuckers''?Really? You are going with that, are you? Okay! *chortles*

In this case we are reminded of 2 people, the waitress at the Millenium who we think wasn't supposed to say she saw the family having breakfast there and the laundryman who was supposed to say nothing about seeing a guest in the wrong place at the wrong time.

*Wipes tears of laughter away*

As we now know the laundryman didn't say anything but as he had not been got to in time they assumed he had and this was what forced Carpenter to overplay his hand.

Jesus, you are genuinely mad. What ''hand'' and how did he ''overplay'' it?

We don’t know exactly where the Ocean Club did start using the JMSE.

Ah yes, the JMSESo the Ocean Club were simultaneously playing Good Cop and Bad Cop, were they? Pretending to look for the child, but all the time actually briefing the staff to lie for a group of British tossers?

But we know they were the first. The “Tapas Quartet” singing from the same hymn sheet that day shows that Ocean Club had then clearly opted to create a JMSE. We would even say, THE crucial JMSE.

Right - so let's get this straight.The Tapas group told the Ocean Club they had ''accidentally'' killed the child - although what you describe is actually homicide.The Ocean Club said ''Not to worry, we'll sort that out for you, this is what you have to say" and then proceeded to instruct each person in the resort - including the 360+ guests, and some nearby pensioners - in what to say to cover up the crimeThat is what you are saying, isn't it?And not one person said "Fuck you - I'm not covering up anything"?

In terms of files this quartet was the first to show that the Ocean Club clearly wanted to help cover-up what happened.

Who is this ''quartet''?

If those 4 people had then said on the 4th when they were questioned by the PJ “No, that group of guests didn’t dine here during the week. They were only here last night”, this whole story would have stopped there and there. If that had happened the whole abduction hoax had no legs to stand on.

Ah - Tapas staff, I seeBut why would they say that?I know you are exceptionally dim, but you can't have forgotten that other guests dined there during the week, and saw the McCann group.So you are saying that they all made it up too? All of them? Because they were all swingers?So the dad there with his three boys - a swinger?The two sisters, one heavily pregnant - swingers?You are out of your tiny tiny mind.

Instead, these 4 statements, and the ones that followed from other OC staff said “yes, they were here… yes, they reserved the table… yes, they checked the children… yes, they were a happy group and they did drink a bit…” but most importantly these statements also said “yes, and we want to help the investigation, so please, please tell us how we can help you find the truth.”

Instead they showed a willingness to the PJ to find the truth while lying to them about what had really happened.

So all these people - staff, holidaymakers, locals - they all lied their arses off to the PJ and the PJ were too thick to notice, is that what you are saying? Because that IS what you are saying.Here is a summary of what you are sayingThese people who consisted of guests, workers, Ocean club management, bystanders and local residents from the ex-pat community, almost instantaneously on the alarm being raised, simultaneously agreed to a man, woman and child, to lie about the events of the previous week and of that evening in particular, covering up for the fact that they knew a young child had suffered a violent death, and even when there was a reward of over £2m offered, not one of them ever decided to tell what they knew - a silence they maintained for the next eight years. Hundreds of them. Not a word.And the police didn't have a clueThat is what you are sayingAnd you claim they all did they because they were so ashamed of being swingers. Even the ones that weren't swingers.

Offering to help get to the truth but firmly blocking it with the saintly candidness of being “evident” bystanders. Something that we’ll see repeated very often as we will show.

And the moment that first Ocean Club employee lied to the authorities the snowball that we know today began to roll.

The biggest problem the PJ faced was not the T9 and their lies. The Ts could have been 10, 30 or even 60, but if the Ocean Club hadn’t backed up their story, it would have been easy to see through all.

The biggest problem PJ faced was the “innocence” of the resort and how the Ocean Club exploited it.

The resort did nothing wrong. Therefore they are completely innocent

PJ faced people who they couldn’t possibly suspect of anything and who had come forward without hesitation to badmouth the McCanns, to say that there was negligence.

Actually, they didn't ''badmouth'' them. They just told the truth

The resort confirmed all that the T9 had said about the relationship between them and the Ocean Club. That they dined at Tapas, that the group regularly checked on the children they had left alone in the apartments.

Aren’t those exactly the 2 premises needed for the abduction to happen? Yes, they are and no it’s not a coincidence the nice resort confirms them to the authorities.

Okay, let's just stop thereHave you ever stopped to consider for a second that the reason the stories tally is because that is, in fact, what happened?The McCanns DID eat at the tapasThey were observed by staff and others doing soHence the stories check out. Isn't that a much more reasonable scenario than your massive, multi-layered conspiracy?

The Ocean Club’s “innocence” was assumed by all right from the start and has been taken for certain and gone unquestioned by all.

By all, except us in this blog.

That is nothing to be proud of. Your posters are exceptionally stupid and you are exceptionally manipulative.No-one with half the sense they were born with regards you as anything other than a whackjob

The PJ, Mr Amaral and all of us have faced this lie and we all reacted to it in the exact same way: it didn't cross our minds to suspect. If there was absolutely no apparent reason to suspect the resort so why even consider the possibility?

Why indeed?

What on earth could make the resort come together, close ranks and lie? Only if it was in their best interest to do so and looking at the situation nothing looked like a red flag.

How would committing a serious crime be in the best interests of the local residents? Or the staff?Or the guests?

Not even the swinging. We have reason to believe that PJ very quickly came to know about swinging. Barra da Costa and the word search on Murat’s and Malinka’s computers tell us that.

You are nuts. Some ex-detective who apparently picked the idea up from a blog, and a word search on a computer?If you are now claiming that the PJ quickly discovered the supposed swinging, then Mr Amaral also knows. And they have all kept quiet too? Is that what you are claiming?

What the PJ failed to realise is up to what extent the British were willing to go to protect their reputations about it.

What a load of absolute nonsense. You are saying that the PJ found out that the guests were all swingers but not that the guests had all lied to them?You don't have much faith in the PJ, do you?

We're certain that for the PJ the swinging was something done privately and none of anyone’s business but their own and as it had no connection with the girl’s disappearance there was no need not to leave it alone. Swinging is adult fun, has nothing to do with children and their investigation was about the disappearance of a child.

Except that you also maintain that they all lied to the police to cover up the swinging.The PJ might not have given a gnat's chuff about any swinging, but they sure as hell would about being lied to.What you maintain is that the PJ and Mr Amaral knew about the swinging but are in complete ignorance about the fact that everyone lied to cover it upWell, how can that be?How could they know about the supposed swinging, yet not know that they had been lied to - do you see the problem?

Abduction, paedophilia or family were the possible scenarios, no reason at all to bring the swinging going on in the resort into the picture.

In our opinion PJ knew about the swinging and simply ignored it as there was no apparent connection between that and Maddie's death. Indeed there wasn't, the connection of swinging with Maddie is only post-mortem.

So they ignored the fact that they had been lied to? They never uncovered the fact that there ''were no tapas dinners''? It completely escaped their notice that every single person had lied to them?And then for good measure, the UK police did the same?You don't have much faith in the PJ or Mr Amaral, do you?

But the opinion of the Brits was completely different from that of the PJ. They could and would not afford for it to be known. It was something no risks at all were to be taken. That’s why it was decided to fake an abduction BEFORE authorities arrived. Absolutely no chances being taken.

What a load of bullshit. There is a dead child and all anyone is supposedly worried about is covering up their nocturnal activities? Cobblers. Absolute cobblers

The moment they started to lie, which was when the GNR officers arrived at the apartment, there was no turning back no matter how much blundering followed as we have witnessed.

No one, absolutely no one that night could have predicted the consequences and proportions of things to come. No one that night could have realised the proportions that lie would take.

Really?According to you, the Ocean Club ordered over 400 people to lie. But they couldn't foresee the consequences of that? Are you shitting me?

We fully understand they weren’t exempting the T9 in any way from the responsibility of being involved in Maddie’s death. All the deciders tried to do was to assure the Ocean Club wouldn’t be involved in something that it indeed wasn’t involved with in the first place.

So they knew the T9 were responsible for the death of a child. But they provided them with false alibis rather than have people know it was a swingers resort?Rubbish.

One thing is certain, when they tried to do “just this” they knew very clearly that they were committing an illegality when they decided to conceal the body.

Ah - so the Ocean Club also concealed Madeleine's body, did they?Christ, their room service really is exceptional, isn't it?''Er yes, Room service? Oh hello, I would like to order some sandwiches please and a bottle of New Zealand white. And there is a body I would like removing - is that okay? Yes, 20 minutes is fine"

That was the moment they jumped on the “illegal” ship together with whoever had been responsible for the girl's death. From that moment on they became as accountable to the law as them.

And your evidence that the Ocean Club concealed her body consists of what?

All would have been solved if the Brits knew something about the Portuguese and that they would be discreet about the swinging. All they had to do was just tell the truth openly and frankly and then ask for the maximum discretion possible about the swinging.

Tsk, if only, eh?They could have just said ''Sorry, but we seem to have inadvertently killed one of the children - could we keep it between ourselves? Oh that's super. Much obliged. Oh and if we could keep mum about all the shagging? Yes, that's lovely. And you'll collect the body? Excellent, thanks again"

PJ wouldn’t be committing any illegality in excluding this activity from the investigation (which in fact they did without being asked) as it would be simply not relying on something that needn’t be there.

Of course not. Instead of which they had everyone give false statements, thus committing something very illegal. Yes, a much better idea.

If things had been done like that, we're certain that only a small and not even noticed piece of news would come out about how a little girl had died in the midst of an argument which happened between a friend of the family and her mother for whatever reason it happened.

You think the man backhanding a child so she flew across the room and was killed instantly would only warrant a ''small piece of news''?Is there something wrong with you?You have very strange moral values. You seem to think nothing of a man forcing himself on a woman in the belief he has consent as ''her husband said it was okay"You seem to regard a grown man striking a child hard enough to kill her in order to shut her up as ''an accident''You seem to believe that hundreds of people would, without exception, cover up the violent death of a child rather than have people know they had been somewhere where swinging was happeningI hope you don't have any children. Your moral compass is so skewed I would fear for them.

Who would know Madeleine McCann today? No one.

And the little girl would have justice as all involved would have been appropriately and correctly prosecuted by the law.

But just a small item, eh? Because it was an ''accident''

But no, as we said, the Brits took no chances. And once the authorities arrived and the lie started it had to be maintained. What else could they say after that? That enough was enough, please let’s start this all over again as it didn’t happen like this at all and we’re just pulling your leg? Please go back to your station and wait for our call and pretend we never called you tonight and we'll call you again?

Hmmm - and thousands of people all kept quiet too, eh?

That’s why we smile when people say swinging doesn’t merit such a cover-up. Of course it does

No it doesn't

but that’s beside the point. The point is how, when and why those present decided to lie. What whoever had to decide thought sufficiently important to deserve to be lied about, at that precise moment and not afterwards.

Eh?

What those there thought to be very important or not is completely different from it to be important.

Eh?

All of us in our lives have many times realised in hindsight we have given importance to things that weren't important at all. But when we thought them important, that perceived importance we had of the thing conditioned all our actions.

We repeat, it's not about what we think we would think important but about what who was there thought it was.

It was about the swinging but it could have been over something ridiculous such as a stolen biscuit or a glass of spilt milk to exaggerate.

Jesus fucking wept

If whoever had to decide thought that the spilling a glass of milk for some strange and unfathomable reason was sufficiently important to lie about to authorities then we would be exactly where we are right now because of a glass of spilt milk.

Of course there’s something that may be taken into account when making a comparison with a glass of spilt milk and what happened in Luz and that was the willingness of others to follow-up the lie with the lies of their own to confirm the initial lie.

For that a glass of spilt milk won't do because it may be perceived very important by a few but certainly won't by many.

The lie in Luz had the commitment of many.

No it didn't

For that to happen those involved in lying must have been stakeholders in the lie.

So how was a 12 year old local girl a ''stakeholder in the lie''?Or a group of ex-pat elderly women?

The loss of a life, even if accidental, is something much too serious for one to lie just out of friendship, much less to help a stranger. Only stakeholders, only those who feel they have something to lose lie in such circumstances.

QuiteSo what possible motive would half the people you have mentioned have to lie?Locals? Why would they lie about the death of a child, for someone they didn't know?Ex pats? DittoWorkers? DittoGuests? DittoThe only people with a motive to lie are the ones responsible for the child, or anyone who harmed her

The moment the GNR was called the lie stopped being about a motive and started to be about having lied. Once one lies one just keeps on lying to protect the lie before. And it never stops until truth, however simple and unimportant, is unveiled.

Utter, utter rubbish.

That’s why we say that if we are where we are in this case almost 8 years and a half after we owe that to the Ocean Club and Mark Warner. If they hadn’t set up and maintained all their “nice little stalls” - statements made with the apparent purpose to help but with the opposite intent - which blocked PJ from the truth all this wouldn’t have been possible.

Blocked the PJ from the truth?But you claimed the PJ quickly discovered the swinging but said nothing. So by implication they discovered the lies and said nothing.

Their “nice little stalls” or statements were totally credible. They were even saying that the group was a bunch of irresponsible and negligent party-seekers.

Where is there a single statement referring to them in those terms?

They were clearly pointing a negligent finger at the T9.

Really? Where?Make your mind up - were they shielding them are not?

It was “evident” this finger-pointing must have been truthful as no one supposedly badmouths one is trying to help, right?

But the “nice little stalls” were not to help the T9, they were to help those setting up the “nice little stalls”.

Oh ffs

To the general public it was soon too evident that the scenario PJ was facing to solve was one in which they had to unravel inconsistencies of the details of an obviously discrepant story told by the T9. A story of negligence v no negligence in which the latter was fully supported by the bullying of the British government, the British press and the British elite.

Absolute cobblers. Negligence v no negligence? What the fuck are you on about?What bullying by the press, government and 'elite'? Who are the 'elite' in this wooly-headed scenario?

See how to the general public the Ocean Club seems to be no part of the story?

What wasn’t as evident, or even perceptible, was that this story was set against the background of deceit laid out by the resort disguised as truth and assumed as such.

Absolute rubbish. Why don't you produce some evidence of this? Not theories, not fairytales, not stories you pull out of your arse every time you are challengedJust evidenceI'm waiting.......

Very few ever knew that it was in this scenario with this background that Mr. Amaral was to find the truth as to what happened. And those who did, were the ones who were setting the lie up.

Not a single word of that makes any sense

Is Mr Amaral at fault for not noticing? No and anyone saying otherwise is simply being ridiculous.

You said he did notice - make your mind up

To fully understand this case one has first to understand the UK and its complex, not to say hypocritical relationship with anything sexual. A very serious case of public virtues and private vices that has completely undermined British society.

This really is the biggest load of old cobblers, especially as you are not part of British society and clearly don't know the first thing about it.

Maddie was never about Maddie but about Britain. Mr Amaral and the PJ could never win with such a monster. Hats off to him for standing up to it that must be said and acknowledged

Bullshit.

04. The Internet and JMSE

In our last post “Missing People” we showed that there were on average, listed daily on the booking sheets, 361 people in the resort. As we know the sheets were tampered with so we are unable to know what the exact number of guests was.

No, you have falsely claimed that the sheets were tampered with. You are of course completely wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that the sheets have been tampered with

We suspect that those who appear on the lists had no choice but to appear while others had their names removed due to the position they held in the hierarchy of the food chain .

More nonsense.For starters according to your little piece of shit analysis, the sheets show MORE people than the total states, not less. Your claim that names were removed is utter fictionSecondly, the majority of those sheets were printed before Madeleine disappeared. Now - you cannot simultaneously have Madeleine suffering an accident on the 3rd, and have tampered sheets printed on the 1st and 2nd, can you?Or did they have a psychic staying?

This means that we suspect that there were more than the average 361 guests listed present in the resort. That’s almost 400 people spending thousands of pounds to stay in a resort which basically offered 2 things, beach and pool, and in the time period in question provided none.

You have absolutely no evidence or reason for suspecting this, or for pulling another figure out of your arse.Er, there was a beach, yes. And a pool. Your point is?

Apparently we are led to believe that 361 people stayed in their rooms or spend their days down in the bars of the resort or those like Chaplins, Kelly’s and Paraíso. Because, however quaint it may be, Luz has absolutely nothing to see. And without beach or pool, nothing to do.

There WAS a beach and a pool. Do you think they rolled them up and put them away in a cupboard?

I am reminded of this:

Of Paraíso, the only beachfront esplanade, we have the CCTV images of Thursday afternoon and although it has clients it isn’t packed with a significant number of the 350+ guests who, as far as we know were around town with nothing to do.

You don't have a clue, do you? It's a perfectly nice resort with a lovely beach and plenty of day trips available if they want a change

There’s Sagres to visit and then there’s Lagos. But if one wants to visit Lagos why not stay in Lagos? Much more to do there and the difference in prices in the low season do not justify the renting of a car and the time wasted to go to and fro.

There’s so much beach sand one can play with, there’s so much tennis one can play too. At the end of the day these activities are done with. What to do with the rest of the week? Stay in the room and watch Sky or GMTV?

Are you familiar with the concept of a holiday? Laze around the pool, read a book, go for a stroll?Seriously, trying to diss the place in the hope of convincing people it was full of pasty Englishmen trying to get their leg over with the neighbour's missus is utterly feeble.

Pay thousands of pounds to put up with the kids on foreign soil instead of home? And this during school time?

Our theory says that the vast majority of these people were there for a reason: adult fun.

Theory, yes. Lunatic theory with no evidence to support it. A theory you have become utterly obsessed with to the amusement of anyone with even half a brain, an entry criteria which sadly excludes many of your readers

That would keep all discreetly entertained both in the resorts' apartments as in villas nearby. No one wanted to go to the beach or to the pool.

I thought you said the beach and the pool weren't available?

And the vast majority of these people didn't want the reason they were there to be known by anyone but by those there. What was to happen in Luz was to stay in Luz.

If you genuinely go around looking at people and building up these elaborate fantasies in your head, I suggest you seek professional help. It isn't normal and it isn't healthy

That was the motto Maddie’s death put in risk. That was exactly what the hoax is about: to keep in Luz what was happening legally in Luz.

Let’s just say that were 300+ individuals who want to keep this secret as a secret.

And your theory says that 300+ individuals were all prepared to do something which could potentially get them sent to jail for many years in order to cover up a perfectly legal activity.You really don't know much about the British, do you?

That they will go out of their way to protect their own name and make sure that what they were there for is not known publicly.

But instead get themselves mixed up in the homicide of a child. Yes, excellent plan.

Add to these the staff of the Ocean Club who want to save their jobs and Mark Warner staff who do too

So now you are saying they lied to save their jobs - and they didn't think of telling the truth and claiming the reward when they were later laid off because of the drop in business?

Add the ex-pats who were also involved.

Ah ha - not so fastWhat would the ex-pats have to gain or lose in your barmy army? What goes on in the Ocean Club is nothing to do with them, so why would they get involved? Why would a child get involved?

Add all those benefiting commercially from this.

Like who? Who precisely is benefiting from a resort reduced to the bones of it's arse by the whole affair?

Add to this final number the close family and trusted friends of all of those above who when they got to know what really was happening offered a hand to help keep this secret a secret and so save the reputation of their family and close friends.

Oh right. So now we have hundreds of guests, perhaps a hundred staff, maybe a couple of hundred locals - and all their nearest and dearestSo what you are claiming is that there are literally thousands of people who all know the truthAnd not one of them has toldNot one of them has gone to the police or the papersNot one of them has tried to claim the reward There is an old Chinese proverb, Textusa. It says ''A secret known to three men is safe only when two of them are dead"Your theory is deranged, dear. Completely deranged.

A secret, we repeat, that has absolutely no illegality to it. Yet it does originate from one, not of their doing: Maddie’s death.

As can be seen, there exists a very significant number of people, “small fish”, who want and go out of their way to keep the swinging a secret.

How?How do they ''go out of their way'' to keep it a secret?

But outside those who helped conceal the body, no one else of the above committed any illegality.

Yes they most certainly did. At the very least, Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

And they know that those who they know they did, the T9, are getting away.

What?!

They, like us also want justice served for the little girl.

Really? So they keep quiet, do they?

They want to keep the swinging a secret but have the T9 prosecuted. They simply want to punish the illegal while keeping the legal out of sight. Seems simple, straightforward and fair.

Only it isn't.

They are just a large group of people wanting THEIR truth, not THE truth.

And how do you now what these people want - have they spoken to you? Has someone said "Textusa, we know what happened, but we don't want to say in case people find out about the swinging"Or is this yet another fantasy you have pulled out of your arse?

THEIR truth is about hiding the legal (the swinging) and exposing the illegal (Maddie’s death) but THE truth implicates the legal (swinging) as it was because of it another illegality (the obstruction of justice) happened.

What was (is) completely legal ventured without return into the territory of illegality the moment justice was obstructed. The moment the body was concealed.

Swinging is legal but the swingers in Luz committed an illegality which was not anything related with their sexual activity but with the faking of an abduction to hide the swinging from the British public.

Yes - except earlier you claimed only those who hid the body had done anything wrong. So make your fucking twisted mind up.

In our post “The Great Maddie War” we explained how people, disguised as truth-seekers, populated the various internet sites to undermine the quest for THE truth by pushing THEIR truth, the one confined to the T9.

Or, to put it another way, people who are not daft enough to take any notice of you

They soon put up this wall that any truth outside THEIR truth wasn’t true. It was ridiculous, it shouldn’t be considered. It wasn't worth discussing and who tried to do that that was either ignored or attacked. It still happens to this date.

Let’s discuss there was a family who were completely comfortable in lending their daughter to the McCanns for a week to pass as Maddie as part of a pre-planned murder. Discuss swinging? Oh please, don't be ridiculous, that’s ludicrous.

Both as ludicrous as the other. But at least they didn't have a cast of thousands

That’s why there will always be heated and interesting debates about shadows v bruises on pictures, about if the last photo (evidently photoshopped so most likely not even taken that week) was taken on Sunday or on Thursday, about who is lying about jemmied shutters and whooshing curtains, about whether Gerry signed for another child on the crèche sheets (sheets evidently tampered with and that means the same person could have “signed” for all and any child by faking handwriting or not even making that effort and simply sign with another name), etc. Why? They're pointless but are entertaining and keep the debate alive and well within the T9 border.

Ah - so those are deemed by you ''not relevant''Whereas you write an entire post about a doodle.

But the same happens with relevant issues like the DNA and the dogs. Those can be discussed freely as long as no one tries to go outside the T9 and their inexplicable capability of mustering and force into action agencies like CEOP and the FSS. Did we say the T9? Sorry, it's all they say, due to Clarence’s magical but almighty powerful wand. A wand that made almost the entire UK rush to Luz in 2007 but wasn't able to find him an electable circle last elections.

He wasn't elected because he's a massive twat

For example, if one dares to go outside the T9 on DNA one is met with a wall of “indifference”.

We showed how impossible it was for the Gordon boy to leave his DNA high up on a wall where he couldn't possibly reach as alleged by the FSS

No you didn't

and show how strange we find how his father who literally spat blood all over the apartment from a shaving cut doesn't leave any trace of his DNA there and no one appears to be interested.

No you didn't

Why?

Because it was yet another fantasy pulled from your arse

Because the Gordons fall outside the T9 circle and so are “untouchable”. Whatever they said is true and that cannot be argued. If it wasn't so one would have to ask why they were lying and one doesn't want to do that.

Are you out of your fucking mind? They were not even in PdL at the same time, so how fucking dare you accuse them of lying, you foul cretin?

Otherwise it’s fine to discuss anything else about DNA. Why? Because it keeps things contained within the evil T9 and the evil government and doesn’t poke anyone else “saintly”.

Another example is negligence which seems to be now questioned openly. But only to the point where one T9 was always left in one of the apartments and so keep things to the T9. Say there was no negligence because the children were never left alone and silence is what you get.

Because you are a loony

By the way, those saying there was no negligence because there was always one of the T9 in one of the apartments are wrong. They are overlooking that at least on Thursday night the T9 were ALL allegedly at Tapas at the beginning of dinner so allegedly all the children were left completely alone in the apartments: NEGLIGENCE.

About there being no negligence, when we were the first speak about it years ago our mental health was seriously questioned and not only by those overtly against us. Again, today we smile on seeing people taking as theirs the ideas we put out when it was very risky to do so.

Your mental health is seriously questioned by all except the random collection of mutants and halfwits you have gathered around you

Partial negligence (a T9 in one of the apartments) is just before that border that is not to be trespassed between the T9 and the “saintly” others, the Tapas staff.

We say there wasn't any negligence because there were no Tapas dinners (they dined elsewhere in Luz or in the surroundings) and the children were being taken care by nannies.

Bullshit. Plenty of witnesses to them dining at the Tapas. But you would rather call them all liars than admit you might be wrong

The people wanting THEIR truth and only that to be known started to make “nice little stalls” appear on the internet, popping up like mushrooms.

Some were sites, such as blogs and forums, but most were characters, who we call “White Hats” (“WH”) or pretend White Hats. The JMSE effect: put up a nice front to hide and/or to distract.

In this post we will be calling them TRUTHmongers.

So basically, anyone who doesn't agree with you

In that “The Great Maddie War” post we explained how successful they were. So successful that all would have been over by now if it wasn’t the disastrous (for them) review ordered by David Cameron in May 2011.

They set out to gain the required status of immaculate innocence and sainthood. They were fighters for what they said was the truth so after a certain show of commitment and determination they were not to be questioned.

By appearing to be outsiders absolutely committed to finding the truth for pure altruistic reasons, they quickly gained what they intended: “sainthood”.

They didn’t want to reach just the status of simple truth-seekers. That would allow others to question their “opinions”. The status they wanted and got, was that of Knights of TRUTH.

Shiny armour and proudly holding the colours of TRUTH, they became the paladins of the cause.

What the fuck is she on about now?

They made Mr. Amaral their god and his word gospel, knowing he was under the same hypnotic trance as all of us with no possibility to know better. They praised Mr Amaral as it served their interest. Now readers can understand why we said very openly we didn’t owe any loyalty to him.

Laughable.

We respect him dearly and regard him as THE hero of this case but we know he was helpless against the might he really faced.

As preachers of this new religion, TRUTHmongers became the blessed ones, so could not be questioned. Their word a dogma.

I really think she has flipped this time

But as God needs the devil to highlight his goodness so did these “heroes” need evil. That was job tasked to the Black Hat blogs, forums and characters. The more the Black Hats spewed hatred against the Knights of TRUTH the more they sanctified them.

With the Knights of TRUTH on the good side and the Black Knights on the other there was nothing to stop the “tournament” from taking place. And it did. And it was the “The Great Maddie War”.

This, dear reader, was the scenario you found when you decided to find out the truth about what happened to Maddie McCann. The exact same scenario that Mr. Amaral was confronted with in Praia da Luz.

We here faced people pretending to be good and wanting to help as long as that truth and help remained tightly confined to the T9 and Mr Amaral faced the Ocean Club, Mark Warner and ex-pats all wanting to help as long as that truth and help remained tightly confined to the T9.

And where was truth, the real truth in the middle of this? Nowhere to be found. And that was the whole objective in which all of us, some time or another have helped to achieve.

So what you are saying is that no-one knows the truth except you.You arrogant fool

We only woke up sooner than others but when we did, it was too late. Everyone was already under the spell of all the “saints” abounding. To wake people out of this torpor has been a hard and very slow task and we’re still very far away from being successful.

We hope you noticed that we wrote TRUTH and not truth. Or Truth. We didn’t use caps to highlight the word. We used them because it’s an acronym.

TRUTH is an acronym and stands for Twist and Regurgitate Until Tricking History – TRUTH.

Snort

Just like Jenny Murat, just like the Ocean Club, TRUTHmongers seek to put on the cloak of sainthood to distract us all from truth.

That sainthood where all lies uttered cannot be questioned in any way for fear of ridicule and “rightful” offended outrage and indignation.

I will be posting some information soon on cults and specifically the language used by cult leaders to manipulate their followers. It is particularly interesting as it closely mirrors what Textusa does.I suspect Textusa has been involved in something along those lines in the past, either in a quasi-religious framework or in acts of deceptionYou will be able to judge for yourself.

05. Using TRUTH to cover-up THE truth

This is another neat and effective trick and this case is filled with them.

When a newbie stumbles on this case, he just like Mr. Amaral in Praia da Luz, is confronted with people doing the exact same thing Ocean Club did then, all over the various sites: TRUTHmongers who have since set up “nice little stalls” all over the internet.

People the newbie wouldn’t think of not trusting. Note, TRUTHmongers speak the truth, they’re not lying. They only are omitting the parts of the truth that are inconvenient to them.

People the newbie thinks are telling him what is going on. People who the newbie thinks could enlighten him as to what happened. People who the newbie thinks have studied the subject in depth before him. People who the newbie thinks provide their opinions on solid basis (and they do, only this solid ground is the one of their choice).

But the newbie only thinks all this because the same people he comes to trust are the same people who assure he thinks that way.

The newbie is enticed with the TRUTH so that he never finds the truth.

This is classic religious cult-speak"There are many people who will tell you theirs is the one true religion. But I am the only one who can save you" etc, until they end up in a burning building, drinking the Kool-ade

Plus, quickly brainwashed with the TRUTH he will start to reject truth when he sees it. Will fight it. Not knowing he becomes a fighter against himself, against all he came here to fight.

The TRUTH is handed to newbies by TRUTHmongers who, if you have noticed, never debate certain things.

There are some thing they never debate because they are nuts

The Michael Jackson Memorial society met every month to discuss the adequateness of the esplanade

Certain things such as:

- the Big Round Table (the only person fighting this visibly keeps posting pics of big round tables – we know they exist like the one above – but what we want to see is THE Big Round Table that was that night on the Tapas esplanade and not seen to this day);

Why? You have already said it never existed. When you were shown a film of it you lied and said the film had been ''digitally remastered"*snort*

- the total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies));

- the Tapas dinners;

You are the only one who thinks they never happened

- the Tapas Reservation Sheets:

You are the only one who thinks they are faked

- Mrs Fenn;

You are the only one who thinks she was involved

- Derek Flack;

You are the only one who thinks he was involved

- TS;

You are the only one who thinks she was involved

- JW;

You are the only one who thinks he was involved

- the Quiz Nights;

Just you, Textusa

- the watersports;

Just you, Textusa

- the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva);

Just you, Textusa. And it did not contain semen, you know this, so stop lying

- the swinging;

Just you, Textusa

- the tampering of the booking sheets;

Just you, Textusa

- the tampering of crèche sheets, etc.

Just you,and a couple of demented randoms Textusa

So many things… discussed only on this blog and with so little interest shown elsewhere by those claiming, loudly, in wanting to find the truth.

Why such avoidance in discussing the things we keep exposing?

Because you do not ''keep exposing'' them. You just pull mad theory after mad theory out of your arse, witter on about it for fucking hours, then wait for the simpering fool chorus to croon ''Oh Textusa, you are so clever" while you "blush" in the background

Note we put swinging topic on its own. We ask not for others to discuss facts within swinging as it’s for that the blog exists. It they do discuss it though, we do welcome it.

What a strange statement - are you saying you ask people not to discuss swinging elsewhere?Why?

What we don't have is the attitude we’ve seen in others whereby if you're not for us, you're against us. Genuine difference of opinions should be and are respected.

You have never ever respected anyone with a difference of opinion

No, what we ask is for people to simply acknowledge fact.

You have never presented a fact, only loony arse-theories

And then explain how the facts they have acknowledged fit into their theory.

For example, we would like to know why the Tapas staff lied about there having been the Tapas dinners and Quiz Nights within the paedophile theory, to just name a known one.

That isn't a fact - it's a theory and a false accusation

To pretend not to see fact when fact is there is not, we think, the best way to substantiate a theory.

You never present facts, Textusa. Just ridiculous theories. You wouldn't know a fact if it flew down your cleavage

If the facts substantiating our opinion about any of these topics are whacky then nothing more easy than to debunk us by showing just how whacky they are.

No - not facts. And that's what I do, every Friday

But never a rebuttal from TRUTHmongers.

It's actually quite difficult for people to rebut complete fiction, other than saying it is bollocks, as yours is

Their only defense is silence or personal insult. Criticism on form and number of words. Nothing about content.

Rubbish. I break your posts down every week, I am the only one that can be bothered. The rest take one look and nod off.

People who are able to read the PJ Files to its finest details and comprehend them but then claim they bleed from their eyes whenever their sight encounters our words.

It's because you write complete shite

Because they won't (can't?) criticise content, they limit their argument to an only “blue is not blue because I don’t think blue would merit this so to discuss blue is a waste of time, besides blue is legal”.

They do criticise content, but as I say most of it is so ridiculous that the correct response is often to point and laugh

The legal argument is laughable.

You have never had one.

Let us ask our readers by a raising of hands how many think being gay is illegal? No one? Correct, it isn’t. It is quite a stupid and offensive question to ask but in a moment the reader will understand why we asked.

Let’s continue, how many think a gay person should be ashamed of being gay? Hmmm, again no one. Another stupid and offensive question.

Ok, last question before the punch line, how many think being gay is not socially accepted? Again, no one because even those who think it is wouldn't dare raise their hands publicly. This, unlike the other 2, is not a stupid or offensive question to ask.

Having answered negatively all 3 questions above please answer the following question: how many openly gay football players are there in the various championships?

Quoting Wikipedia“as of 2012, there are no openly gay footballers in England's top four divisions.”

That is statistically impossible. Not difficult but impossible

Of course it isn't. The question was how many OPENLY gay players there were

That means there are a significant number of football players hiding their sexuality although it’s legal, nothing to be ashamed of and socially accepted to be gay.

No, it means that there may have been a number of gay footballers who were not publicly out in 2012. You do not know that there definitely were or how many they numbered

I can see that statistics is not your strong suit either

Justin Fashanu is a tragic reminder of how cruel the hypocritical British society can be when it comes to sexuality. Our hommage to him.

If you are going to use someone to illustrate a poorly-made point, at least get your facts rightJustin Fashanu killed himself after being accused of sexual assault against a 17 year old male in Maryland, USA, where homosexual acts were illegal at the time. In fact the age of consent had not been equalised in the UK either at that point, so it would also have been unlawful here, even with consent. British society is very different now, 25 years down the line, thank goodness.

Just a rumour is enough. Quoting the same Wikipedia article “Graeme Le Saux, an England international left-back, endured homophobic taunts despite being married with children. The rumours allegedly began because of his “unladdish hobbies” which included antique collecting.”

So next time anyone writes swinging would not cause any social unrest to the swingers because it’s legal and doesn’t even raise an eyebrow please refrain from doing so. Make an effort and remember Justin.

What an utterly ridiculous and patronising comment.I find it very insulting that you try to comment on British society when you clearly know nothing whatsoever about it.The vast majority of people don't give two hoots about a person's sexuality. The LGBT community has equal rights in most parts of the United Kingdom and no-one bats an eyelid. The fact that you felt it necessary to drag up a tragic case from 25 years ago to illustrate your invalid point says it all.

TRUTHmongers do not seek truth. They seek for TRUTH to superimpose truth, settle there and never ever, be moved from there.

TRUTHmongers are fine with this. In fact their objective is to see 9 bodies nailed to the crosses along theVia Apia with the Rothley couple upfront followed by the dastardly Dr Payne.

Truth on the other hand although not only convicts the T9 it also involves many others in the obstruction of justice and body concealment. TRUTHmongers cannot allow that.

Your version of the truth, maybe. No-one agrees with you apart from your drones.

Are all those out there who don’t subscribe to Textusa TRUTHmongers?

Obviously not. Fortunately there are many truth-seekers. Good-hearted tenacious people.

Unfortunately many of them have been influenced by TRUTHmongers in such a manner that it makes it hard for them to let go of beliefs created through time.

Massive irony klaxon!!!

Also, it’s also very hard to “part ways” from “friends” made while seeking for the truth. To come to terms that one can no longer trust in those one trusted.

And here is another classic example of the cultist at work, as it tries to separate the target from friends and family

Much easier to fool someone than to convince someone that s/he has been fooled, as Mark Twain said.

We understand that.

Unfortunately TRUTHmongers also do and exploit it very effectively. A TRUTHmonger is only a “Knight of TRUTH” with the help and support of the truth-seekers. Ultimately these are who give them their credibility.

A voice needs echoing and without them, s/he is only a seller of nothing, striking the same piano key endlessly because the tune s/he is limited to play demands the tune be of a single note.

We trust the readers’ capability to tell the difference between truth-seekers and TRUTHmongers.

What a load of utter cobblers

06. TRUTHmongers

But is the JMSE only relevant to the Maddie case because of its pernicious obfuscating effect both to the 2007/2008 PJ investigation and to those interested in the case on the internet?

No. It has some very positive aspects also.

In truth, TRUTHmongers have been and are very important and useful.

Their most important usefulness was to have kept the Maddie issue alive during all these years.

They couldn’t risk truth being known, so had to be here to make sure that TRUTH was fresh each and every morning and that things were kept neatly and tidy around the T9 and around them only.

You are a very insulting and offensive person.What you are basically saying is that everyone who does not agree with you has been 'hiding' the truth for years. How fucking arrogant of you

One must acknowledge all the hard work put in by the TRUTHmongers.

They proceeded to passionately demonise the T9 and mainly and in particular the McCann couple and Payne.

Very quickly TRUTH became a synonym of bringing the McCanns to justice. The couple has become the target and their “execution” would quench the mob’s “thirst for blood” while keeping truth neatly tucked away.

It was this passionate demonisation of the McCanns by the TRUTHmongers that has kept the issue alive all these years.

What TRUTHmongers failed to realise then and are starting to realise now is that they are the living proof of why the cover-up is a cover-up.

They are the living proof that once caught in a lie, it’s very hard to get out of it. That for them to be economical with the truth has become an integral part of their lives that this simply has to be maintained independent of pride, integrity, honesty or any other idealistic values held in the past.

Exactly like with those directly involved in the cover-up. Once caught in the lie the way out is so difficult that it’s better to continue lying.

You are about as self-aware as a fence post.

That’s why they will pretend not to have read this.

So anyone that hasn't read you is pretending. *Chortle*. Like the time you claimed the BBC read your forum - that was hysterical

They will continue with their farce whereby Textusa only exists when convenient, forgetting that when that convenience happens the familiarity shown betrays a knowledge that isn’t supposed to exist.

What?

They will continue their role-playing, endlessly discussing topics that are within their comfort zone, asking the same questions over and over again and revealing the same doubts about the same details no matter how tirelessly they were explained to them before.

They will be throwing STINK BOMBs and picking them up to throw them in again.

They will run in circles over and over again until they provoke the same level of saturation about the topic as there was at the end of 2010.

Oh, yawn!

Unfortunately for them they will first have to wait for the outcome of 2 things: SY and PJ investigations. Only after these outcomes could this issue possibly dwindle away

But we're certain that these 2 outcomes will be thoroughly debated. Again, we advise some who are reading us that the only route possible is the full truth. The other, the archival, will be a mistake.

The real obstacle that TRUTHmongers face to differentiate TRUTH from truth is to be able to explain the fate of the body without there being LOCAL help in those first crucial hours.

And that is the common ground between TRUTHmongers and those, in the UK and Portugal, hypothetically (only when they present their conclusions will we know) who tried to whitewash the whole thing: to find a REASONABLE explanation as to what happened to the body without implicating LOCAL help.

Oh please - don't try to pretend that your ludicrous obsession with swinging was because the body could only have been got rid of with local help. You really are thick.

As we have said repeatedly we think that is indeed a mission IMPOSSIBLE.

TRUTHmongers have been useful in keeping the issue alive but that may not be the biggest asset they represent. Their biggest help is in helping truth be revealed. Truth, not TRUTH.

What? Yes, with their pushing of TRUTH they point us in the right direction to truth.

Imagine there are 2 characters, Jane and Mary and each have a set of followers (or people set in protecting them), their respective TRUTHmongers.

To Mary’s TRUTHmongers TRUTH is the truth without all that may harm Mary.

In the same way, Jane’s TRUTH is all of the truth but what affects her, directly or indirectly.

So all Mary’s TRUTHmongers say about anything else but Mary, and that includes Jane, is true.

Same thing about what Jane's TRUTHmongers have to say when Mary comes up in their topics.

One just has to disregard what Mary's TRUTHmongers have to say about Mary and just pay attention what they are telling us about others.

Equally, one has to ignore what Jane's TRUTHmongers say about Jane and pay attention to the rest.

One just has to be a careful listener and a good observer and the truth is out there for one to see.

I have absolutely no idea what the fuck all that Mary and Jane shite was about. I think she has completely lost it this time.She is desperate to be taken seriously, no matter how she pretends otherwise.But her biggest problem is that she has nailed her knickers so firmly to the swinging mast that she can't get them off again By the way if anyone at the end of that can explain what the mad old cow was wittering on about Mrs Murat, please drop me a line

The Textaloons praying for guidance - "Tell us what to think, oh fragrant one" they cry